Navigation

Primary Navigation

Secondary Navigation

Talking Politics

Back to Talking Politics home

Search

What's Britain's place in the new world order?

Wed Jul 01 11:44AM

The respected IPPR think tank has published a report on Britain's defence status in a volatile geo-political climate.

By Alex Stevenson

Focusing on Trident's future merely scratches the surface of the commission on national security's final report. It promises something much grander: a fundamental revision of the world order, and Britain's place in it.

At the heart of the assumptions in this report, hashed out across two painstaking years, is a pragmatism offering a radical reassessment of our defence priorities for the 21st century.

Its vision is of a nation threatened as much as by climate change as it is by armies. Nuclear proliferation and the perils of international terrorism loom as large as 20th century atomic armageddon. Swine flu and cybercrime offer threats as intangible as the guns of the last 100 years were brutally real.

There are ways and means of addressing these shifts, of course. The government's updated national security strategy, announced last week, is testament to that.
Yet the report wants to go much, much further. It is fundamentally dissatisfied with the status quo. And it has the crucial insight to realise that finite resources mean tough choices have to be made.

Part of its frustration with the existing set-up is the lack of organisation in matching Britain's responses to security risks to the reality. That's why a national security council is sought, a way of rationalising all government efforts under the umbrella of a single body.
Another element is its hostility towards maintaining the outdated cold war model of defence focusing solely on conventional armed forces. "We're no longer living in the context of the old cold war," commission co-chairman Paddy Ashdown urged.

Britain needs much more than the capability to fight the sorts of wars it has fought for centuries. Aircraft carriers, for example, fall heavily under the microscope. As Charles Guthrie, a former chief of the defence staff, put it: "How good are aircraft carriers at chasing Somali pirates in shallow waters in the Gulf of Aden?"

This, therefore, is the context within which the Trident question must be aired.

"We are not saying we should scrap Trident," IPPR deputy chair Ian Kearns explained. "We do say we should look at it again and... consider all options for a minimum possible deterrent."

As co-chair George Robertson put it: "It's a question of spending more effectively. This is a time for urgent action and hard choices."

There is no need for any action to be taken to renew Britain's nuclear deterrent until 2014; but that is the timeframe the commission is currently operating on.
If it gets its way and succeeds in influencing the manifestoes for parties fighting the next national election, the most pressing need will be the next strategic defence review.

Here is a key goal, however: it is a strategic security review which the report demands is necessary. Only this holistic approach will give the government the utility it needs to effectively make a real difference.

David Omand, a former permanent secretary in the Home Office, knows more than most the importance of this. He's worried by the ability of government to make the right decisions. "The Cabinet secretary has to have somebody by his side who can devote the time to bringing together all these different interests," he said.

The commission is strong on the bureaucratic solutions needed to combat the rise of the security challenge in coming years. On the wider context within which Britain is operating, however, it has the benefit of Lord Ashdown's experience to articulate an imposing prospect for the next few decades.

"I suspect we are seeing the beginning of the end of nearly 600 years of western power, western values and western institutions," he said, suggesting Iraq and Afghanistan could be the last military interventions mustered solely by western states.

"We are going to have different priorities in a multipolar world, and so is the United States. If we're going to do things in the world, we're going to have to reach out."

With severe constraint on defence spending expected, the IPPR report is brutally realistic about the expanded needs of security issues.

"To paraphrase Clausewitz," Lord Ashdown finished, "'this is no longer an issue which can be left to the generals'."

Comments1 - 10 of 224

First
Previous
1
2
3
4
Next
Last

the new world order what is it exacltly this was a term a few years ago that would have been lauhged at by the majority or the uninformed(you would have been dismissed as a conspiracy nut) but its bandied around now like nobodies business(the bankers can say what they want). THE NEW WORLD ORDER is world government run by the bankers(to enrich themselves at our expense) who have been responsible for the present credit crises(the bankers), they cause the problem and give us the solution. the worlds governments in response nationlize all banks hand power(financial power thats all that counts) to the IMF (private run by banking families). Jackie smith had to deney a leaked report the new id card will have all banking transactions on it and the tax man could see every transaction at will. this is the forerunner of the new world bank card. anyone or nation does not comply will have his card switched off. Brown also mentioned the shadow banking system at the G20, what this is is the secret slush money of the bankers run through the cayman islands tax free(the queens bank is run by her henchmen from family members of royal order of the garter who's members are part of the banking ellite.)this is the same tax-havens used by drug dealers criminals and dictators worldwide. so Britain's role in the new world order will be to tax everyone through the new world banks and move tax free slush fund money for the ellite through the cayman islands courtesy of her maj(you though she was a figurehead instead of a gangster)

From liammateer on Wed Jul 01 12:00PM
Report abuse
Britain doesn't really have a place in the 'New World Order' if only we'd see it. We ceased to be a World power at the end of the last War and as we gave away The Empire through the 50's and 60's. It really is time we stopped chasing after America and wasting Lives and money on pointless wars. If we could only accept we're finished on the World Stage the better it would be for us. Imagine just how much money would be available if we reduced our Army to being purely defensive, abandoned our Nuclear Weapons, stopped the hundreds of billions in overseas aid, to countries who hate us, etc. etc.
We are not a World power politically speaking, but we are a world power with our language, our literature, our music and our culture, isn't that enough?

From alanseymour35 on Wed Jul 01 12:04PM
Report abuse
Who can predict the future with any accuracy. Nobody can. But the better prepared we are then the better we can control events or even deter them. Aircraft carriers let you have planes where no airport exists. planes are damned necessary to any soldier on the ground in modern warfare and so the circle goes round and round. An effective military is one that is mutually supportive and inter operable. What is needed is a solid decision on what the role of the military should be and how far you expect it to operate from home. Once you have that then you can plan force levels. it should also be borne in mind the dependency of Britain and Europe on international sea trade. @#$%s best chance was to starve us out of the war but failed due to an effective navy and air force, so all three services have their role and place in any strategic planning process. You can never plan for all contingencies and if you try to cover a specific threat you tend to leave yourself open on another front. Carefully balanced but properly funded for the perceived missions expected of it should be the way ahead. All three services have their pet projects and will argue their corner, so a stand off and independent review is required that will have no sacred cows to worry about. The biggest single white elephant is the trident programme. Very doubtful whether it would stop a mad mullah with a bomb by deterrent and almost certainly would not be used to retaliate against an unknown target. Unless of course we have an elected madman of our own. Mission parameters and forces tailored to fill those parameters. And next time some smiling jackanape wants to go start a war make damned sure you get out on the street and protest till he resigns.

From stuanliz on Wed Jul 01 12:08PM
Report abuse
liammateer, stop spouting your BS, you obviously have no idea what the IMF is, or how this credit crisis has happened, and prefer to believe some extremly mad conspiracy theory

From chrlslatto on Wed Jul 01 12:10PM
Report abuse
Oh dear. This headline is really going to bring the trolls out from under their bridges...

From tim_stclair on Wed Jul 01 12:14PM
Report abuse
We no longer appear to be a world power (presumably being a world power ensures you can bully the rest into your way of thought) and a number of nice sane people may publish their solutions to this problem on this forum but these solutions would all depend on having nice sane people in government. Unfortunately only the mentally inept and morally bereft seem to put themselves up for election in this country.

From colinhartwright on Wed Jul 01 12:27PM
Report abuse
what you dont think scare tactics and conspiricies exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From siwezza on Wed Jul 01 12:38PM
Report abuse
take time off and look around you...troops' accommodation is not up to standard and some are still waiting for basic kit and. money should be spend on troops serving at this moment. what is the use of spending billions and men serving now are neglected on the basics.

From pfzero@ymail.com on Wed Jul 01 12:54PM
Report abuse
new world order, all about technology now, if we all aspire to live the western dream, fridge, car, air con etc etc not enough land and resouce to cope with it.With the present population growth, we in the UK, need to protect our our own ablitity to produce food, fuel and energy, relying on others will fail, need to go back to self supporting, got all the coastline to harness sea and wind power, get the farms producing again, overseas trade is great but need a solid base to work from.we are great at inventing things, new technologies, health care etc, but it tends to go pair shaped further down the chain, need to regian that ground and get smart.

From robertsherlock on Wed Jul 01 12:55PM
Report abuse
Gosh this article is so boring!!!!

From sanddhi on Wed Jul 01 12:55PM
Report abuse